Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

Posted: April 10 2018,17:30

Just FTR, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency is a great book!

fnxtr

Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

Posted: April 10 2018,17:38

Quote (Texas Teach @ April 10 2018,14:33)

Quote (fnxtr @ April 10 2018,12:59)

Quote (stevestory @ April 10 2018,09:21)

Quote

Law of Conservation of Information vs Darwinism

April 10, 2018 Posted by News under Darwinism, Information, Intelligent Design
1 Comment

From Andrew Jones at ENST:

Quote

One of the most fundamental and useful ideas that has come out of the intelligent design movement is the insight expressed by Bill Dembski as the Law of Conservation of Information. Put simply, the idea is that information does not appear out of nowhere, but can always be traced to a prior source, analogous to conservation of energy or momentum in physics. It has been used to argue that evolution cannot create information, and I think that is true, so long as you properly understand what we are saying. But a lot of critics have not understood it yet.

It has been critiqued from a number of directions; a suspiciously large number of directions in fact: usually if an idea is wrong there is just one main thing wrong with it, so I am always suspicious when any idea is portrayed as “wrong in every way” or gets attacked in a scattergun way. You should be suspicious, too. More.

Of course the LCI is correct. Otherwise, Boltzmann brains or flowered teacups would be appearing everywhere.

And of course Darwinism isn’t even possible. It is amazing the number of tenures today that depend on proclaiming the opposite. If that does not make you suspicious…

See also: Law of Conservation of Information Part I

and

Law of Conservation of Information Part II

I mean, never mind that the entire Information Theory community completely ignores it, it is a True Law!!!!!11111

linky

What the actual... :-/

You have to love the logic of “people say it’s wrong in every way imaginable. That means it MUST be true!”

I shake my head at the reification of "information", as if it's some disembodied entity with an existence independent of the source.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night." Joe G

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: April 10 2018,17:55

Quote (Jkrebs @ April 10 2018,18:30)

Just FTR, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency is a great book!

yeah, and a terrible netflix show, sadly. :-(

fnxtr

Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

Posted: April 10 2018,18:02

Quote (stevestory @ April 10 2018,15:55)

Quote (Jkrebs @ April 10 2018,18:30)

Just FTR, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency is a great book!

yeah, and a terrible netflix show, sadly. :-(

+1

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night." Joe G

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: April 10 2018,18:18

Quote

3
bornagain77April 10, 2018 at 3:10 pm
as to:

Quote

the Law of Conservation of Information. Put simply, the idea is that information does not appear out of nowhere, but can always be traced to a prior source, analogous to conservation of energy or momentum in physics.

A much more ‘physical’ conservation of information is found in Quantum Mechanics.

Quote

Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time
Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.

somebody please go point out that if BatShit77 is correct here, what he's saying is that Dembski "discovered" a law that was known decades earlier.

(not that BatShit is actually correct)

Edited by stevestory on April 10 2018,19:18

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: April 10 2018,18:20

Quote (fnxtr @ April 10 2018,19:02)

Quote (stevestory @ April 10 2018,15:55)

Quote (Jkrebs @ April 10 2018,18:30)

Just FTR, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency is a great book!

yeah, and a terrible netflix show, sadly. :-(

+1

Try and imagine the Dirk of the show smoking Gauloises, like the Dirk of the book. Can't do it.

Acartia_Bogart

Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

Posted: April 10 2018,19:50

Allan Keith to ET, who provided two links to a couple of Joke Gallien’s posts on his brain-dead blog, in response to a request for some research.

Quote

Maybe I am missing something. Both of those links were to a site who’s owner is a well known jerk who does nothing but insult and swear at anyone who disagrees with him. A well known homophobe who frequently calls his opponents “faggots”, “assmunchers” and other more offensive epithets. Do yo have links to any more reputable sites? I would be interested to read those.

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: April 11 2018,08:15

Boy, they're full-blown global warming deniers over there, ain't they? No surprise. Global warming is basic chemistry. If we can't expect them to understand basic biology, basic chemistry is probly slightly harder, even.

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: April 11 2018,10:40

Yeah, you'd think basic chemistry would be... elementary.

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: April 11 2018,10:54

Quote

Legacy media reporter admits: “Creationism doesn’t affect the way science is done”
April 11, 2018 Posted by News under Creationism, Culture, Intelligent Design, Science
1 Comment
From John Stossel at Townhall...

John Stossel! That's the fucking Gold Standard of Truth, right there!

Although, in a narrow sense, it's correct--creationism doesn't affect how biology is done, any more than astrology affects how astrophysics is done.

Acartia_Bogart

Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

Posted: April 11 2018,11:04

Bob O'H,

Quote

bs77 – Now could you answer my question? I wasn’t asking about geologic time.

If God has been keeping the climate stable, how do you explain the ice ages?

That's going to leave a mark. Typo? Me thinkst not.

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: April 11 2018,11:41

and BS77 of course retreats to the 'BOB Who could possibly know what god wants UR SO ARROGANT' which kinda hurts the ID posish.

LarTanner

Posts: 36
Joined: Dec. 2015

Posted: April 11 2018,11:50

Quote (stevestory @ April 11 2018,10:54)

Quote

Legacy media reporter admits: “Creationism doesn’t affect the way science is done”
April 11, 2018 Posted by News under Creationism, Culture, Intelligent Design, Science
1 Comment
From John Stossel at Townhall...

John Stossel! That's the fucking Gold Standard of Truth, right there!

Although, in a narrow sense, it's correct--creationism doesn't affect how biology is done, any more than astrology affects how astrophysics is done.

"Legacy media reporter admits" - it's so hard to maintain the conspiracy when conspirators keep admitting things. With O'Leary on the beat, the whole edifice will surely crumble very, very soon.

KevinB

Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

Posted: April 11 2018,14:26

Quote (stevestory @ April 10 2018,11:21)

Quote

Law of Conservation of Information vs Darwinism

April 10, 2018 Posted by News under Darwinism, Information, Intelligent Design
1 Comment

From Andrew Jones at ENST:

Quote

One of the most fundamental and useful ideas that has come out of the intelligent design movement is the insight expressed by Bill Dembski as the Law of Conservation of Information. Put simply, the idea is that information does not appear out of nowhere, but can always be traced to a prior source, analogous to conservation of energy or momentum in physics. It has been used to argue that evolution cannot create information, and I think that is true, so long as you properly understand what we are saying. But a lot of critics have not understood it yet.

It has been critiqued from a number of directions; a suspiciously large number of directions in fact: usually if an idea is wrong there is just one main thing wrong with it, so I am always suspicious when any idea is portrayed as “wrong in every way” or gets attacked in a scattergun way. You should be suspicious, too. More.

Of course the LCI is correct. Otherwise, Boltzmann brains or flowered teacups would be appearing everywhere.

And of course Darwinism isn’t even possible. It is amazing the number of tenures today that depend on proclaiming the opposite. If that does not make you suspicious…

See also: Law of Conservation of Information Part I

and

Law of Conservation of Information Part II

I mean, never mind that the entire Information Theory community completely ignores it, it is a True Law!!!!!11111

linky

Perhaps information arises from vacuum fluctuations. Particles of information and anti-information are formed as pairs in in free space. Normally, they recombine and cancel out, but an increase of information could be obtained by creating a process to capture the anti-information, such as UD.

Bob O'H

Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: April 11 2018,14:53

Quote (stevestory @ April 11 2018,11:41)

and BS77 of course retreats to the 'BOB Who could possibly know what god wants UR SO ARROGANT' which kinda hurts the ID posish.

Especially as he was the one arguing that climatic stability has to be because of God. A curious argument, I thought.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

Acartia_Bogart

Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

Posted: April 11 2018,15:16

Quote (Bob O'H @ April 11 2018,14:53)

Quote (stevestory @ April 11 2018,11:41)

and BS77 of course retreats to the 'BOB Who could possibly know what god wants UR SO ARROGANT' which kinda hurts the ID posish.

Especially as he was the one arguing that climatic stability has to be because of God. A curious argument, I thought.

It rained for forty days and forty nights.

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: April 11 2018,20:36

Rainy days and Mondays...

Acartia_Bogart

Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

Posted: April 11 2018,20:47

Quote (Henry J @ April 11 2018,20:36)

Rainy days and Mondays...

They always get me down. But that’s just me.

Bob O'H

Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: April 12 2018,02:11

Now ba77 is claiming that the ice ages were part of a terraforming effort by God. If I thought he'd understand it, I'd call it the Slartibartfast theory of human evolution.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

CeilingCat

Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

Posted: April 12 2018,05:47

Quote (stevestory @ April 11 2018,10:54)

Quote

Legacy media reporter admits: “Creationism doesn’t affect the way science is done”
April 11, 2018 Posted by News under Creationism, Culture, Intelligent Design, Science
1 Comment
From John Stossel at Townhall...

John Stossel! That's the fucking Gold Standard of Truth, right there!

Although, in a narrow sense, it's correct--creationism doesn't affect how biology is done, any more than astrology affects how astrophysics is done.

Alan Keith to ET in the same thread:

Quote

One of us has made a living as a chemist for the last thirty years. What have you been doing?

Link

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: April 12 2018,10:05

BatShit77 seems to be claiming that moving water can't erode rock, and the colorado river couldn't have formed the grand canyon?

I think his crack supplier is stepping on the product too indiscriminately.

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: April 12 2018,10:16

Quote

31
Bob O'HApril 12, 2018 at 8:30 am

Quote

You claim liquid water by itself can erode the rocks just fine.

It’s not just me who claims that. People who study rivers do too. It’s how the Grand Canyon was formed, for example. Most of the valleys in the UK were also formed by rivers, not glaciers.

Quote

And you do realize that the grinding, pulverizing, action of glaciers on the nutrient bearing rocks of entire mountains is also a necessary part of this process for providing land areas that are rich in nutrients that can host plant life.

Necessary? Really? So what glaciers were there in Australia? And how come the Nile Delta is so fertile? Or the Congo basin?

Both of my parents taught geography, so I literally learned this stuff at their knee.

Quote

32
ETApril 12, 2018 at 8:48 am
Bob:

Quote

It’s how the Grand Canyon was formed, for example.

Question-begging

what fresh tard is this?

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: April 12 2018,12:15

Quote

You claim liquid water by itself can erode the rocks just fine.

Stupid scientists must think water is some kind of solvent. Sad!

Glen Davidson

Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

Posted: April 12 2018,12:44

Quote (stevestory @ April 12 2018,10:16)

Quote

31
Bob O'HApril 12, 2018 at 8:30 am

Quote

You claim liquid water by itself can erode the rocks just fine.

It’s not just me who claims that. People who study rivers do too. It’s how the Grand Canyon was formed, for example. Most of the valleys in the UK were also formed by rivers, not glaciers.

Quote

And you do realize that the grinding, pulverizing, action of glaciers on the nutrient bearing rocks of entire mountains is also a necessary part of this process for providing land areas that are rich in nutrients that can host plant life.

Necessary? Really? So what glaciers were there in Australia? And how come the Nile Delta is so fertile? Or the Congo basin?

Both of my parents taught geography, so I literally learned this stuff at their knee.

Quote

32
ETApril 12, 2018 at 8:48 am
Bob:

Quote

It’s how the Grand Canyon was formed, for example.

Question-begging

Liquid water alone really wouldn't erode rock very well. If it were acidic, it would erode limestone by itself, but not most other rock.

But of course liquid water is never by itself on earth, and it erodes rock quite well by moving rocks, thereby causing abrasion and sometimes breaking rock.

Well-known processes that leave behind easily recognized river-eroded valleys.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

LarTanner

Posts: 36
Joined: Dec. 2015

Posted: April 12 2018,13:32

Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 12 2018,12:44)

Quote (stevestory @ April 12 2018,10:16)

Quote

31
Bob O'HApril 12, 2018 at 8:30 am

Quote

You claim liquid water by itself can erode the rocks just fine.

It’s not just me who claims that. People who study rivers do too. It’s how the Grand Canyon was formed, for example. Most of the valleys in the UK were also formed by rivers, not glaciers.

Quote

And you do realize that the grinding, pulverizing, action of glaciers on the nutrient bearing rocks of entire mountains is also a necessary part of this process for providing land areas that are rich in nutrients that can host plant life.

Necessary? Really? So what glaciers were there in Australia? And how come the Nile Delta is so fertile? Or the Congo basin?

Both of my parents taught geography, so I literally learned this stuff at their knee.

Quote

32
ETApril 12, 2018 at 8:48 am
Bob:

Quote

It’s how the Grand Canyon was formed, for example.

Question-begging

Liquid water alone really wouldn't erode rock very well. If it were acidic, it would erode limestone by itself, but not most other rock.

But of course liquid water is never by itself on earth, and it erodes rock quite well by moving rocks, thereby causing abrasion and sometimes breaking rock.

Well-known processes that leave behind easily recognized river-eroded valleys.

Glen Davidson

Like a drop of oil in hot water merging with another drop and forming a single glob, BA77 enters the tard fray:

Quote

If your parents taught you that nutrient rich sedimentary soils can be created from mountains, boulders and rocks by liquid water alone, then you can file that teaching in with what they taught you about Santa Clause.

Moreover, as an atheist, Water is certainly not your friend

CeilingCat

Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

Posted: April 12 2018,15:20

BatShit's Law:

Quote

On atheism, as you yourself tried to imply, there simply should have been no good reasons for God allowing ice ages.

First corollary to BatShit's Law:

Quote

On atheism, there simply should have been no good reasons for God to wear polka-dot underwear.

Link

Texas Teach

Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

Posted: April 12 2018,16:49

Quote (LarTanner @ April 12 2018,13:32)

Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 12 2018,12:44)

Quote (stevestory @ April 12 2018,10:16)

Quote

31
Bob O'HApril 12, 2018 at 8:30 am

Quote

You claim liquid water by itself can erode the rocks just fine.

It’s not just me who claims that. People who study rivers do too. It’s how the Grand Canyon was formed, for example. Most of the valleys in the UK were also formed by rivers, not glaciers.

Quote

And you do realize that the grinding, pulverizing, action of glaciers on the nutrient bearing rocks of entire mountains is also a necessary part of this process for providing land areas that are rich in nutrients that can host plant life.

Necessary? Really? So what glaciers were there in Australia? And how come the Nile Delta is so fertile? Or the Congo basin?

Both of my parents taught geography, so I literally learned this stuff at their knee.

Quote

32
ETApril 12, 2018 at 8:48 am
Bob:

Quote

It’s how the Grand Canyon was formed, for example.

Question-begging

Liquid water alone really wouldn't erode rock very well. If it were acidic, it would erode limestone by itself, but not most other rock.

But of course liquid water is never by itself on earth, and it erodes rock quite well by moving rocks, thereby causing abrasion and sometimes breaking rock.

Well-known processes that leave behind easily recognized river-eroded valleys.

Glen Davidson

Like a drop of oil in hot water merging with another drop and forming a single glob, BA77 enters the tard fray:

Quote

If your parents taught you that nutrient rich sedimentary soils can be created from mountains, boulders and rocks by liquid water alone, then you can file that teaching in with what they taught you about Santa Clause.

Moreover, as an atheist, Water is certainly not your friend

Over on the other thread, Joe just whipped out some ultra-pure TARD in the form of

Quote

Water, just another piece of evidence for ID

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: April 12 2018,19:27

So who or what designed di-hydrogen monoxide? Walt Disney maybe? (i.e., what does a diagram of an H2O molecule look like)

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: April 12 2018,19:52

Water is irreducibly complex. Remove the hydrogen, or the oxygen, and BAM you've just got gas. I AM A SIENSE MASTAR!!!!111

Bob O'H

Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: April 13 2018,02:25

Quote (stevestory @ April 12 2018,10:16)

Quote

31
Bob O'HApril 12, 2018 at 8:30 am

Quote

You claim liquid water by itself can erode the rocks just fine.

It’s not just me who claims that. People who study rivers do too. It’s how the Grand Canyon was formed, for example. Most of the valleys in the UK were also formed by rivers, not glaciers.

Quote

And you do realize that the grinding, pulverizing, action of glaciers on the nutrient bearing rocks of entire mountains is also a necessary part of this process for providing land areas that are rich in nutrients that can host plant life.

Necessary? Really? So what glaciers were there in Australia? And how come the Nile Delta is so fertile? Or the Congo basin?

Both of my parents taught geography, so I literally learned this stuff at their knee.

Quote

32
ETApril 12, 2018 at 8:48 am
Bob:

Quote

It’s how the Grand Canyon was formed, for example.

Question-begging